GOP Presidential Nomination

[GodIsSalvation]

Jeb Bush–Three Generations Of Imbeciles Are Enough: Ann Coulter - February 4, 2015 - THREE GENERATIONS OF IMBECILES ARE ENOUGH

Heh I have not seen Ann Coulter get mentioned for a while. I thought from HW to W and Jeb was only two generations of Bush, father to sons.

Then again Coulter's article seems more on immigration and dismay over Mitt deciding to do what is best rather than on the Bush Dynasty. Despite the cariacture, the Bush Family are not imbeciles. I don't think it be wise though to let Bush back into the White House for a while.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Ben Carson is one interesting candidate. He's an independent with forward thinking conservative views like myself and in no way is a neo-conservative but can't be lumped in with the traditional conservatists either.

Most Americans don't understand how very different we are from libertarians, neo-conservatives, and because of our forward thinking smart solutions... also paleo-conservatives.

Here's Ben on health care: Ben Carson on Health Care

His approach is definitely a grade better than the neo-conservatives. Unfortunately, it also is unrealistic and would leave tens of millions of American citizens without adequate healthcare ultimately pushing these rapidly deteriorating people into the street and onto welfare, social services, long-term disability, etc... which is all paid for by taxpayers, of course. The costs would be much more than if you just provided them all low cost 1st tier health care. For some reason, most conservatives can't get their heads around this important point.

However; I do like a two-tiered approach which ensures adequate healthcare is available to all poor U.S. citizens but costs taxpayers who foot the bill for it far less as it relies on inexpensive older treatment protocols and procedures, generic prescriptions, and aggressive cost-containment practices while retaining incentive for those who work hard and become successful and want to use their own money to access the latest advances most extensive provider networks... which is an important point given the enormous percentage of U.S. GDP the healthcare industry presently has in the U.S. economy. It would be foolish and counter-productive to destroy such a profitable industry that brings much revenue into the U.S. Treasury and provides so many private sector jobs in the U.S. economy.

I could take his entire position apart point b point and show just how unrealistic it really is but it would take time to much time right now. I worked in the industry for a number of years, in addition to many other industries in various positions of responsibility and I know what I'm talking about. My approach is the best balance of all stakeholder needs implemented in the most efficient manner.

Again, I say ...

View attachment 97025

He's third or fourth in every poll. People like his message. He's practical, he's honest, he's a Christian. He's not a politician.

He is what this country needs.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Sorry for the typos, the phone rang and I had to take an important call. Back. lol.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

She's another cranky pundit with both good and bad views like most pundits.

And while the Bushs may not be imbeciles when it comes to increasing their own personal net worth; their policies have been instrumental in directly gutting the domestic U.S. labor market and reducing the standard of living for the vast majority of those who remain in it.

And, of course, this means that indirectly the Bushs acted as primary drivers for increasing the national debt via the annual budget deficit which is now dominated by welfare programs to care for all those poor working and long-term unemployed people that can't find a good job that pays a sustainable wage anymore nor build a successful micro or small business that can compete with the monopoly capitalists that flood the nation with cheap foreign made goods across the nation in one stop distribution centers like Walmart, Target, and Kmart. Understand that in the old days, they would have a viable option of working a good full-time job with full benefits or starting a successful micro or small business that could compete.

Heh I have not seen Ann Coulter get mentioned for a while. I thought from HW to W and Jeb was only two generations of Bush, father to sons.

Then again Coulter's article seems more on immigration and dismay over Mitt deciding to do what is best rather than on the Bush Dynasty. Despite the cariacture, the Bush Family are not imbeciles. I don't think it be wise though to let Bush back into the White House for a while.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Unfortunately, it also is unrealistic ...

I would disagree. I believe healthcare savings accounts and a reasonably funded two-tiered system, with insurance companies regulated like non-profits, is a perfect solution. It provides coverage for those who can't afford it, enables those who can to buy whatever coverage they want, and prevents insurance companies from playing the role of demi-god and refusing authorization for a vitally needed treatment.

... and would leave tens of millions of American citizens without adequate healthcare ultimately pushing these rapidly deteriorating people into the street and onto welfare, social services, long-term disability, etc. ...

Again, I disagree. His two-tiered system would ensure everyone is covered, including those who can't aford it.

... which is all paid for by taxpayers, of course.

I believe you're taking your "candidacy" too seriously.

You write like an candidate in a modern-day campaign deliberately ignoring your opponent's position paper. The two-tiered system would fund insurance only for the poorest in the country, plus provide catastrophic care for anyone even in the self-pay market who can't afford long-term care.

The costs would be much more than if you just provided them all low cost 1st tier health care. For some reason, most conservatives can't get their heads around this important point.

I believe you need to reread Carson's paper you linked. It isn't a universal plan. It is strictly for the poor. The rest of us don't need it, especially with the other factors such as healthcare savings accounts and insurance company regulation.

However; I do like a two-tiered approach ...

You own link show's that Carson's approach.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You would disagree and be wrong. Tens of millions of part-time service sector employees, minimum wage full-time employees with no benefits or plans with high deductibles and co-insurances they could never afford to pay (meaning they end up in bankruptcy if they get seriously ill), the millions of self-employed poor, not to mention the enormous number of long-term unemployed, etc... cannot save up several hundred thousand dollars apiece in a healthcare savings account to reasonably fund a completely privatized two-tier system. You're making a false assertion.

And most of them who do get seriously ill or have a serious accident will be "let go" by their employers who will replace them with a healthy "unit" so they'll lose what income they do have.

A "perfect" solution? Not even close.

But since you're adamant that his solution "provides coverage for those [all] those who can't afford it" please show me specifically where and how it does.

And the "rest of you" is a declining percentage of the population with many of the "rest of you" ending up, in time, in the position that you do "need it" and if that ever happens to you; then you'll understand.

But in the meanwhile, please show me exactly where and how Ben Carson's healthcare position provides adequate healthcare for ALL Americans.

I would disagree. I believe healthcare savings accounts and a reasonably funded two-tiered system, with insurance companies regulated like non-profits, is a perfect solution. It provides coverage for those who can't afford it, enables those who can to buy whatever coverage they want, and prevents insurance companies from playing the role of demi-god and refusing authorization for a vitally needed treatment.

Again, I disagree. His two-tiered system would ensure everyone is covered, including those who can't aford it.

I believe you're taking your "candidacy" too seriously.

You write like an candidate in a modern-day campaign deliberately ignoring your opponent's position paper. The two-tiered system would fund insurance only for the poorest in the country, plus provide catastrophic care for anyone even in the self-pay market who can't afford long-term care.

I believe you need to reread Carson's paper you linked. It isn't a universal plan. It is strictly for the poor. The rest of us don't need it, especially with the other factors such as healthcare savings accounts and insurance company regulation.

You own link show's that Carson's approach.

 

[Desdichado]

Ben Carson is one interesting candidate. He's an independent with forward thinking conservative views like myself and in no way is a neo-conservative but can't be lumped in with the traditional conservatists either.

Most Americans don't understand how very different we are from libertarians, neo-conservatives, and because of our forward thinking smart solutions... also paleo-conservatives.

Here's Ben on health care: Ben Carson on Health Care

His approach is definitely a grade better than the neo-conservatives. Unfortunately, it also is unrealistic and would leave tens of millions of American citizens without adequate healthcare ultimately pushing these rapidly deteriorating people into the street and onto welfare, social services, long-term disability, etc... which is all paid for by taxpayers, of course. The costs would be much more than if you just provided them all low cost 1st tier health care. For some reason, most conservatives can't get their heads around this important point.

However; I do like a two-tiered approach which ensures adequate healthcare is available to all poor U.S. citizens but costs taxpayers who foot the bill for it far less as it relies on inexpensive older treatment protocols and procedures, generic prescriptions, and aggressive cost-containment practices while retaining incentive for those who work hard and become successful and want to use their own money to access the latest advances most extensive provider networks... which is an important point given the enormous percentage of U.S. GDP the healthcare industry presently has in the U.S. economy. It would be foolish and counter-productive to destroy such a profitable industry that brings much revenue into the U.S. Treasury and provides so many private sector jobs in the U.S. economy.

I could take his entire position apart point b point and show just how unrealistic it really is but it would take time to much time right now. I worked in the industry for a number of years, in addition to many other industries in various positions of responsibility and I know what I'm talking about. My approach is the best balance of all stakeholder needs implemented in the most efficient manner.

Now I'm curious. What kind of conservative do you consider yourself?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

A CHRISTIAN one.

Now I'm curious. What kind of conservative do you consider yourself?

 

[G4JC]

Since we're talking about Ben Carson, even though he's a great public speaker... Ben Carson: No One Has Right to Refuse Mandatory Vaccinations - I have to give my kids STD shots? Guess I failed as a parent (if I was one). ‘Conservative Hero’ Ben Carson To Beck: You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities | Mediaite - We have a right to guns anywhere. 2nd Amendment. Plus he doesn't have a voting record. It's easier to believe Rand Paul and Ted Cruz simply because if they lied you can go straight to congress.gov and lookup the roll calls. To me Ted Cruz seems like a stronger Christian social-conservative on the issues - he had the guts to stand for israel while being booed... Source: Ted Cruz Booed After Defending Israel at 'In Defense of Christians' Summit

 

[G4JC]

Heh, for whatever reason CC decided to jam my lines altogether. So much for line breaks. Sorry about that. -.-
Anyways... I'm still watching Ted Cruz / Rand Paul / Carson... but I think Cruz and Paul have the experience. It's also funny watching MSM bash them both to no end, in some cases the article are written by Bush's campaign staff... see here, top comment:
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2uzau6/rand_pauls_gaffes_offer_a_glimpse_of_his/

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Since we're talking about Ben Carson, even though he's a great public speaker... Ben Carson: No One Has Right to Refuse Mandatory Vaccinations - I have to give my kids STD shots?

Straw man. STD shots are not mandatory for school age children.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

She's another cranky pundit with both good and bad views like most pundits.

And while the Bushs may not be imbeciles when it comes to increasing their own personal net worth; their policies have been instrumental in directly gutting the domestic U.S. labor market and reducing the standard of living for the vast majority of those who remain in it.

And, of course, this means that indirectly the Bushs acted as primary drivers for increasing the national debt via the annual budget deficit which is now dominated by welfare programs to care for all those poor working and long-term unemployed people that can't find a good job that pays a sustainable wage anymore nor build a successful micro or small business that can compete with the monopoly capitalists that flood the nation with cheap foreign made goods across the nation in one stop distribution centers like Walmart, Target, and Kmart. Understand that in the old days, they would have a viable option of working a good full-time job with full benefits or starting a successful micro or small business that could compete.

I understand enough about the Bush family to know clearly they are not imbeciles. I understand people would lose their cool though over a laundry list of reasons if so soon a Bush became president. So it is simple to me, if Bush wants to run that will be an interesting show, but don't vote for Bush.

 

[p_rehbein]

Since we're talking about Ben Carson, even though he's a great public speaker... Ben Carson: No One Has Right to Refuse Mandatory Vaccinations - I have to give my kids STD shots? Guess I failed as a parent (if I was one). ‘Conservative Hero’ Ben Carson To Beck: You Have No Right To Semi-Automatic Weapons In Large Cities | Mediaite - We have a right to guns anywhere. 2nd Amendment. Plus he doesn't have a voting record. It's easier to believe Rand Paul and Ted Cruz simply because if they lied you can go straight to congress.gov and lookup the roll calls. To me Ted Cruz seems like a stronger Christian social-conservative on the issues - he had the guts to stand for israel while being booed... Source: Ted Cruz Booed After Defending Israel at 'In Defense of Christians' Summit

No, we do not.................and you are taking his comment out of context.......there are currently hundreds of laws on the books concerning guns.....sale, possession and such.......limiting some rights.....The right to keep and bear arms does not promise that a citizen can possess a semi-automatic weapon, or an automatic weapon. It does not spell out what types of weapons will be accepted by society within the language of the 2nd Amendment.........

Because Carson is not a Politician, that does not disqualify him to be President. The Original Intent of the Founding Fathers was for a "citizens Government," not a Government of "CAREAR POLITICIANS" becoming wealthy off of the backs of the citizens. Since you want to tout the Constitution, why not educate yourself of the Constitutional requirements for a person to become President? Or, is that now not enough.......for you......?????

 

[Desdichado]

No, we do not.................and you are taking his comment out of context.......there are currently hundreds of laws on the books concerning guns.....sale, possession and such.......limiting some rights.....The right to keep and bear arms does not promise that a citizen can possess a semi-automatic weapon, or an automatic weapon. It does not spell out what types of weapons will be accepted by society within the language of the 2nd Amendment.........

Because Carson is not a Politician, that does not disqualify him to be President. The Original Intent of the Founding Fathers was for a "citizens Government," not a Government of "CAREAR POLITICIANS" becoming wealthy off of the backs of the citizens. Since you want to tout the Constitution, why not educate yourself of the Constitutional requirements for a person to become President? Or, is that now not enough.......for you......?????

Yes, but the Founding Fathers themselves were not exactly a bunch of greenhorns with no previous legal, military, and/or political experience. The most prominent among them at any rate.

 

[p_rehbein]

Yes, but the Founding Fathers themselves were not exactly a bunch of greenhorns with no previous legal, military, and/or political experience. The most prominent among them at any rate.

???............and your point is...........???

 

[Desdichado]

???............and your point is...........???

..........................................what do you think the significance of that fact would be................................................................?

 

[p_rehbein]

..........................................what do you think the significance of that fact would be................................................................?

............ and your point is? ................

 

[Desdichado]

............ and your point is? ................

My point is that the Founders realized the democratic ideal has its limits. The highest office in the land requires wisdom to operate and wisdom chiefly comes with experience.

George Washington was a delegate, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, and Senior Officer of the Army before assuming the mantle of the Presidency. John Adams was an ambassador, delegate, and Vice President. Thomas Jefferson was a delegate, ambassador, governor, Secretary of State, and Vice President. James Madison was a delegate, congressman, and Secretary of State. James Monroe was an ambassador, governor, Secretary of State, and Secretary of War.

 

[p_rehbein]

My point is that the Founders realized the democratic ideal has its limits. The highest office in the land requires wisdom to operate and wisdom chiefly comes with experience.

George Washington was a delegate, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, and Senior Officer of the Army before assuming the mantle of the Presidency. John Adams was an ambassador, delegate, and Vice President. Thomas Jefferson was a delegate, ambassador, governor, Secretary of State, and Vice President. James Madison was a delegate, congressman, and Secretary of State. James Monroe was an ambassador, governor, Secretary of State, and Secretary of War.

I wuz just picking at ya........

(had to resist posting: and your point is? again.........sigh)

 

[RickyZ]

The trouble with experience is

1. Do you have 20 years of experience, or one year repeated 20 times

2. Experience teaches you how to game the system.